For those who watched the movie, I found the ending interesting. I won't spoil it for everyone else, but Bong Joon-ho made his perspective unambiguous: he's not a believer in social mobility in Korea.
6 of the top 10 Forbes list in Korea are self-made; the other 4 inherited their wealth. In contrast, 10 out of top 10 are self-made in the US. There are better metrics to compare social mobility (this one was convenient!), but scanning down the Korea list, it's clear the tech boom provided opportunities for entrepreneurs to build wealth in Korea, but most of the wealth is still held by descendants of the big conglomerates (Samsung, LG, Hyundai, Lotte, etc.).
While Parasite is hit in the US, the perspective that it's impossible for basement dwellers to make it to nice mansions may be true in Korea, but it doesn't seem to be the case in the US.
Given the bulk of a median American household's wealth is tied to the equity of their primary residence, it would be interesting to see how these returns stack an investment in a single family residential home.
I imagine it would be difficult to parse out home improvements and so forth, but it would be a comparison that more people to could relate to given the average person doesn't buy T-bills and such.
>...deal point has been a new and unwelcome surprise to potential buyers of the company, many said. The remaining bidders only recently got details of search deals that Yahoo has struck.
Given $YHOO price hasn't moved materially this week, it seems likely that the market (including potential buyers) was aware of the Mozilla deal and priced it in.
Having worked at LG for 3 yrs, I'm skeptical this change will come easy. But 'cultural change' is almost always mandated from the top even at US tech startups. From Amazon to Zappos, culture is set by CEO.
Restrictions on buyers (unverified users are limited, 6 levels), social verification, behavior analytics (sift science), among others. User was made whole, police dropped the case, and we introduced $10,0000 guarantee. Not an excuse, but we were a team of 2 when that transaction happened, and it was 3 months after we started while we were in an accelerator.
So the UI allows users to set a discount rate, similar to the way you set a limit order on etrade or Name Your Price on Priceline. I can place an order to buy AAPL for $100 or bid to stay in a 5 star hotel for $10. Doesn't mean they will get filled.
Like most disruptive technologies, it's not quite clear why Bitcoin / blockchain are better than incumbents, namely credit cards / centralized databases.
At Purse, we use blockchain escrows to unlock value from Amazon gift card balances. This was previously impossible (gift card exchanges can't transact Amazon), and the liquidity premium powers the discount. Escrows and other complex transactions are difficult using traditional payment systems, and we believe that they can be applied more broadly to many other markets.
Purse.io provides 25% discounts to shop on Amazon with bitcoin. Pretty incredible - discount comes from liquidating Amazon gift cards ($15b in circulation).
"Merchant adoption is not THE barrier to Bitcoin commerce - it’s the lack of incentive to spend."
Merchants accepting Bitcoin is a brain dead decision. "How would you like to save over 50% on payment processing?" is the easiest sales pitch around. The real challenge is convincing Bitcoin holders to spend.
Possible. However, I recommended AirBnB to several Asian and Caucasian friends who never heard of it before (I'm from GA). Few just showed up in SF and booked same day with no problems. Not one bad experience, except this time. Fully acknowledge it's a limited sample. I'd like to see someone take the same challenge. I'd also like AirBnB data scientists to take a tough look.
I should have done this. But I didn't have this experience to prove a point. Truthfully, I was mostly embarrassed that my suggestion wasn't working and immediately kicked into "find my friend an alternate place" mode. This entire post is not proof and completely anecdotal. I'm the first to admit that. But I hope this audience of entrepreneurs will think about issues like this.
Perhaps you're right. Still, the title isn't accusing either company as racist.
AirBnB created artificial trust between strangers to allow them to share homes. That's a HUGE accomplishment.
On one hand, AirBnB has to keep investing dollars (marketing/dev/support) at their core user group - perhaps the "Student Universe" segment or the "Business traveler" segment.
As they continue to grow, plan for an IPO, take market share from hotels... they need to think about these unintended consequence and work harder towards creating a "open, trusted, diverse community."
Good point. But does it make it easier for racism to happen? If Marriott/Priceline (blindly accepts reservation) is replaced by AirBnB (Chesky's vision), will travel become harder for African Americans?
6 of the top 10 Forbes list in Korea are self-made; the other 4 inherited their wealth. In contrast, 10 out of top 10 are self-made in the US. There are better metrics to compare social mobility (this one was convenient!), but scanning down the Korea list, it's clear the tech boom provided opportunities for entrepreneurs to build wealth in Korea, but most of the wealth is still held by descendants of the big conglomerates (Samsung, LG, Hyundai, Lotte, etc.).
While Parasite is hit in the US, the perspective that it's impossible for basement dwellers to make it to nice mansions may be true in Korea, but it doesn't seem to be the case in the US.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/korea-billionaires/list/#tab:overall
[2] https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#b6d49ad7e2ff